Hope v. Commissioner (7th Cir. 2023)
Seventh Circuit opinion holding that Indiana law requiring individuals convicted of sex offenses pre-enactment to register due to existing registration obligations elsewhere did not violate equal protection.
Does #1-9 v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2023)
District Court opinion holding that Tennessee’s sex offense registry is punitive in nature and so retroactive application of amendments would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
People ex rel. Rivera v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility (N.Y. 2023)
New York Court of Appeals opinion holding that retroactive application of SARA’s “school grounds condition” resulting in the indefinite detention of individuals who cannot find SARA-compliant housing did not facially violate Ex Post Facto Clause.
Smith v. St. Louis County Police (Mo. 2023)
Missouri Supreme Court decision en banc, holding that section 589.400.1(7) of MO-SORA imposes an independent lifetime registration requirement on persons who are or previously have been required to register under federal law.
United States v. Castellano (4th Cir. 2023)
Fourth Circuit opinion holding that district court abused its discretion in retaining special condition of supervised release prohibiting defendant from possessing pornography.
Fallen v. United States (D.C. Ct. App. 2023)
D.C. Court of Appeals decision holding that sex offense registration and community notification requirements for minimum period of ten years, under SORA, constituted “penalty,” for purposes of determining whether crimes are sufficiently serious to trigger Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.
Montana v. Hinman (Mont. 2023)
Montana Supreme Court opinion holding that Montana’s sex offense registration statute (“SVORA”), as amended since 2007, is punitive in nature and cannot be retroactively applied to defendants whose convictions predate the 2007 amendments.
Clements v. Florida (11th Cir. 2023)
As a matter of first impression, the 11th Circuit held that Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for individuals convicted of sex offenses did not substantially limit a registrant’s actions or movement, and thus, registrant was not “in custody,” within meaning of habeas statute.
North Carolina v. Lamp (N.C. 2022)
North Carolina Supreme Court opinion reversing conviction of homeless registrant for failure to register, concluding that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support an inference of deceptive intent and noting that only “willful” registration violations were criminalized.
Matter of Stevens (Wash. 2022)
Washington Supreme Court opinion granting required registrant’s application for admission to the WSBA after considering the applicant’s “past wrongful behavior” alongside “the steps he has taken to improve himself and hold himself accountable” concluding that applicant had adequately established his good moral character and fitness to practice law and stating “like all of us, [the applicant] is more than the sum of the worst moments of his life.”
People v. Talluto (N.Y. 2022)
New York Court of Appeals opinion holding that SORA requires persons subject to its foreign registration requirements to be designated as “sexually violent” regardless of whether their underlying offense was violent in nature.
United States v. Navarro (5th Cir. 2022)
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion holding, in a matter of first impression, that a conviction for a failure to register under federal SORNA is based on a violation of federal SORNA’s registration requirements, which are independent of state law.
Doe v. Department of Justice (C.D. Cal. 2023)
California District Court order granting a preliminary injunction, enjoining the federal government from prosecuting California residents under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for a violation of SORNA without first obtaining certification from the State of California that the individual was required to register under California state law, and, in a prosecution for a failure to provide specific required information, that California law allows the individual to furnish that information to state authorities.
In re T.O. (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
California Court of Appeals opinion affirming lower court and holding that under California law Juvenile Court lacked authority to impose sex offense registration requirements upon juvenile who was not committed to Division of Juvenile Justice.
State v. McMahon (La. Ct. App. 2022)
Louisiana Court of Appeals opinion concluding that Louisiana statute, La. R.S. 14:91.5, which prohibits the use of social networking sites by select categories of required registrants, is narrowly tailored and does not violate First Amendment rights.
Commonwealth v. Roderick (Mass. 2022)
Opinion by the Massachusetts Supreme Court concluding that the imposition of global positioning system (GPS) monitoring as a condition of the defendant’s probation following a conviction of rape constituted an unreasonable search in violation of art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
State v. Larson (Minn. 2022)
Minnesota Supreme Court opinion holding that, under Minnesota law, separate convictions for failure to register involving the same assignment of a corrections agent violated prohibitions against double jeopardy.
Doe as Next Friend of Doe #6 v. Swearingen (11th Cir. 2022)
Eleventh Circuit opinion holding that the continuing violation doctrine applies to required registrants’ claims based on reputational injury and regular reporting requirements in challenge to constitutionality of sex offense registration law.
McGuire v. Marshall (11th Cir. 2022)
Eleventh Circuit per curiam opinion rejecting plaintiff-appellant’s Ex Post Facto challenge and concluding that the provisions of Alabama’s sex offense registration law at issue, including residency and employment restrictions, homeless-reporting requirements, travel notification requirements, and direct community notification requirements, were not punitive in effect.
Cao v. Pennsylvania State Police (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022)
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court opinion concluding that based on recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent SORNA II is nonpunitive in effect and retroactive application of the statute did not violate Petitioner’s rights under state and federal ex post facto clauses.
People v. Krull (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
New York Appellate Division holding as a matter of first impression that, because of the life-long implications of SORA risk level, when a defendant has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination the SORA court should not assess any points for a failure to accept responsibility when defendant’s trial testimony denied the allegations and he has a pending direct appeal.
Wright v. Alaska (9th Cir. 2022)
Ninth Circuit opinion, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, concluding that Appellant was not “in custody” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as result of his Alaska state conviction, despite SORNA registration requirements in Tennessee based on his Alaska conviction.
United States v. Thayer (7th Cir. 2022)
Seventh Circuit opinion holding, as a matter of first impression, that courts should employ circumstance-specific approach when determining whether conduct was a sex offense against a minor, as would render a conviction a sex offense under SORNA.
Braam v. Carr (7th Cir. 2022)
Seventh Circuit opinion affirming district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and concluding that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim because, under the totality of the circumstances, lifetime GPS monitoring of purported class of individuals convicted of repeat sex offenses against children is not an unreasonable search.
People v. Nunez (Mich. Ct. App. 2022)
Michigan Court of Appeals opinion reversing lower court decision and concluding that because SORA is a punitive collateral consequence for the conviction of certain crimes, a defendant must be informed of its imposition before entering a guilty plea and the registration requirement must be included in the judgment of sentence.
People v. Lymon (Mich. Ct. App. 2022)
Michigan Court of Appeals opinion in Eighth Amendment case concluding that Michigan’s SORA statute, as amended in 2021, is punitive in effect and that its punishment was cruel and unusual as applied to defendant where the offense underlying the registration requirement lacked a sexual component.
Interest of C.G. (Wis. 2022)
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects transgender woman’s challenge to Wisconsin registry based on registry provision preventing registrants from legally changing their names, concluding that (1) under well established precedent, placement on the registry is not a “punishment” under the Eighth Amendment and, even if it was, registration is neither cruel not unusual, and (2) petitioner’s right to free speech does not encompass the power to compel the State to facilitate a change of her legal name.
State v. Anthony (N.C. Ct. App. 2022)
North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion concluding that lifetime Satellite Based Monitoring (“SBM”) of Defendant was not an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment after balancing the state’s interest in “preventing and prosecuting future crimes”, Defendant’s “diminished expectation of privacy both during and after any period of post-release supervision,” and the “limited intrusion” caused by lifetime SBM.
Commonwealth v. Corbett (Mass. App. Ct. 2022)
Massachusetts Court of Appeals opinion in failure to register case concluding that trial court judge abused his discretion in excluding expert testimony proposed by the defendant regarding mental disorders which impacted his ability to remember his registration obligation.
A.L. v. Pennsylvania State Police (Pa. 2022)
Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion applying a categorical approach analysis and concluding that sexual assault under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and sexual assault under the Pennsylvania Criminal Code are not comparable offenses supporting the classification of Appellee as a tier III registrant under Pennsylvania’s Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act.